tdarr_library_add

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutation, that settings are cloned from a template (flow/plugin stack, transcode/health-check, cache/output), that counters are reset, that host paths are translated through container mounts, and that the dry run previews every inserted object. It omits auth/permission needs and partial-failure behavior, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and no filler sentences; the parentheticals are dense but each carries distinct information (cloning scope, defaults). It reads as one long paragraph rather than cleanly separated workflow vs. behavior, which costs a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the workflow (dry run vs apply), cloning semantics, path translation, and the optional scan. Missing pieces are auth requirements and error/partial-failure behavior, which would be needed for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: 'cache and output unless given' explains the inheritance default, and the container-mount translation note explains why folders accept host or container paths. That is genuine additive value over the field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a precise verb+resource+mechanism: 'Add folders to Tdarr: one new library per folder, cloned from an existing library'. The cloning-from-template detail is specific enough to separate it from generic library-creation tools, but it never names a sibling (e.g. jellyfin_library_add_path) to route the agent, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the dry-run sentence and 'Optionally starts a find new scan' hint at the intended workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. The agent must infer that dry run precedes apply from the schema rather than the prose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.